Sitting at Nuremberg, Germany
4th April to 15th April, 1946

MR. DODD: We have no objection to anything that is contained
in Book II.

THE PRESIDENT: In Volume II of Book 1?

MR. DODD: We were talking about Volume II, Book 1.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, yes, I see. Then as regards Book
II, you do not object to Book II?

MR. DODD: No, we do not.

THE PRESIDENT: Nor Book III?

MR. DODD: No, we have no objection to Book III. I think our
Russian colleagues have an objection to the affidavit of Dr.
Dencker. I would prefer, however, that they address the
Tribunal on that subject themselves.

THE PRESIDENT: And then, is there a fourth book?

MR. DODD: No, your Honour, there is not, but we have not
talked about the second part of the first book.

THE PRESIDENT: I was told that you had.

MR. DODD: No, I think not. I did mention the newspaper
articles.

THE PRESIDENT: Where are these documents that you are
referring to - in the second volume of the first book?

MR. DODD: The first one will be found beginning on Page 182
of that second volume of the first book.

[Page 343]

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, those are the last two in the index.

MR. DODD: Yes they are.

THE PRESIDENT: We understand that you are objecting to them.

MR. DODD: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: But the index In the first volume of the
first book is the index for both the volumes.

MR. DODD: Yes, it is.

THE PRESIDENT: And what you are objecting to is all
documents up to Hellpach and the last two?

MR. DODD: Yes, that is exactly right.

THE PRESIDENT: I understand.

Then, with reference to books two and three you do not
object, but the Soviet Prosecution wishes to offer an
objection to this affidavit by Professor Dencker.

MR. DODD: That is exactly right, your Honour.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we had better hear what the Soviet
Prosecution says about that.

GENERAL RAGINSKY: I invite the Tribunal's attention to
Document Rosenberg-38. This is in the third Document Book,
Page 29. This document is a letter, dated 24th August, 1931.

THE PRESIDENT: One moment, is it not an affidavit?

GENERAL RAGINSKY: No. I am referring to two documents, Mr.
President, Document Rosenberg-38 and the second one dealing
with Dencker's affidavit.

THE PRESIDENT: All right, yes, I had Page 21; we will deal
with Document 38 first, that is Page 29.

GENERAL RAGINSKY: This document is the letter of an unknown
merchant addressed to Rosenberg, concerning some sort of a
newspaper paragraph. We do not know this newspaper paragraph
since defence counsel, Dr. Thoma, has not submitted it and
therefore we believe it is not relevant to the matter, all
the more so that in none of his claims and in none of his
explanations did Dr. Thoma explain what this document was
supposed to prove and what this letter was about.

I would then like to mention a few considerations regarding
the second document, concerning Dencker's affidavit
presented by defence counsel, Dr. Thoma. This affidavit is
also in the third Document Book, Pages 8-11, and is
registered as Rosenberg No. 35. Judging by the contents,
Dencker, a former member of Staff "OST," participated in
the. perpetration of war crimes in the territories occupied
by the German troops. This Dencker took part in the looting
of the occupied territories of the Soviet Union.

I wish to draw the Tribunal's attention to the fact that
defence counsel, Dr. Thoma, on 6th April of this year,
requested the Tribunal to allow the admission of this
document and the General Secretary of the Tribunal consulted
the opinion of the prosecution. However, before the Tribunal
had made up its mind, before the prosecution had come to a
conclusion, Dencker's affidavits were included in the
Document Book, mimeographed and distributed to everybody.
What, may I ask, are these affidavits? We consider, and it
is very easy to prove, that the information contained in
these affidavits throws a false light on the factual state
of affairs. They contain a number of slanderous and
incorrect statements which have already been refuted in the
documents submitted to the Tribunal and read into the
record. Therefore, inasmuch as Dencker has not been summoned
before the Tribunal as a witness and we are deprived of the
possibility of exposing the mendacity of his evidence under
cross-examination, we consider that these documents should
not be admitted by the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Thoma.

DR. THOMA: Gentlemen, I agree that Dr. Dencker, who states
that 180,000,000 RM worth of tractors and other agricultural
machinery was taken to the Ukraine, should be called as a
witness. But this document is striking evidence of the fact
that reconstruction was in process in the Ukraine, that an
efficient administration

[Page 344]

was intended, that the land was not to be stupidly exploited
but that long-term plans were made in the interests of the
country and the population. I therefore ask the Tribunal to
admit this affidavit in evidence. If necessary, I shall make
an application that Professor Dencker in Bonn be called as a
witness, in case the Tribunal should be impressed with the
statement of the Soviet prosecutor.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

DR. THOMA: And also, Mr. President, I beg your pardon, but I
did not understand the previous objection regarding Document
Book III. I do not have my Document Book III with me, and I
do not know what the objection was.

THE PRESIDENT: On Page 29 is a letter, addressed to
Rosenberg by somebody without signature. It is Rosenberg-38.

DR. THOMA: Oh yes, but that document has been admitted by
the Tribunal, and the signature is "Adolf Hitler."
Apparently, the typist was not able to read that.

THE PRESIDENT: It is a letter, is it?

DR. THOMA: Yes, Sir; it has already been approved. It has
been approved, gentlemen. But, I beg to apologise, I still
do not quite understand. Is Hellpach the only one of my
entire Document Book who has been approved? Is it Sir
David's or Mr. Dodd's wish that only Hellpach should be
quoted and nobody else? In that case I should like to have
an opportunity to go a little into detail on what the other
authors were intended to prove. For instance, I -

THE PRESIDENT: We have not made any decision yet.

DR. THOMA: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: We thought that you had given us the reasons
in support of the documents in Book 1, Volumes I and II.

DR. THOMA: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: If you have given us the reasons, it is not
necessary for you to say anything further.

DR. THOMA: Yes, Mr. President, but, I thought that, with
reference to the different books, I might state very briefly
what I wished to prove. With Messer, Tillich, Leeuw and
Bergson, I am trying to prove that neo-romanticism, that is
the philosophy of the irrational, whose forerunner was
Rousseau, with elementary force invaded Germany and was at
the same time influenced by French, English and American
philosophers. Secondly, through Martin Buber I wish to prove
that this philosophy is not anti-Semitic, but that, on the
contrary, Martin Buber not only preached this philosophy but
also recommended its application in actual cases; it is
precisely Martin Buber's work wherein we find those vital
terms and expressions, which have acquired such importance
in this trial, such as the significance of blood, the mythus
of blood, the relation between national character and living
space, of intuition, of the concepts of movement, of the
character of in heritage, and so forth. And further,
gentlemen of the Tribunal, in connection with these
quotations from Eickstedt, Muhlmann, Scheidt, Keiter, I wish
to state that these authors are not National Socialists, but
that, in fact, they were partly opposed to Rosenberg's
ideology, but they provide proof of the fact that the
concepts of race, people, nation, blood and soil, etc., are
recognised by natural science experts. And Hellpach, in his
"Introduction to the Psychology of Nations," made the
extremely important statement - and Hellpach is a very
famous name in German philosophic literature - that every
thesis leads to other theses which distort it and lead to
its downfall.

Gentlemen, I have only one brief concluding remark to make.
In the last number of "Die Neue Zeitung" there was an
article to the effect that in the French Constituent
Assembly a few days ago a discussion on one of the most
important and basic issues of our times had begun, a
discussion on the rights of man, during which the inner
attitude of the members of the resistance was examined and
definite theses were set up regarding liberty and the crises
liable to affect the rights of man and various
contradictions were pointed out.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

[Page 345]

DR. THOMA: And, gentlemen, the following was established:
There is a contradiction between the preaching of liberty
and the ever greater enslavement as a result of the machine-
age. That is exactly what we say. Secondly, there is a
contradiction between the increase of material wealth and
the decrease of spiritual values. Thirdly, contradiction is
involved in every type of progress, in that every
improvement is accompanied by a corresponding decadence.

Fourthly, there is an opposition between the ideals of
humanism of the eighteenth century and the discoveries of
science regarding human biology and psychoanalysis which
demonstrate that man is subject to the laws of nature.

Fifthly, contradiction between the broad masses of people
who are "enlightened" by such superficial means as
newspapers, radio, motion pictures and all types of
propaganda, and the disappearance of a thinking and educated
elite.

That was the subject of debate in the Constituent Assembly
of the present French parliament and that is why I suggest,
gentlemen, that such questions also have a place in this
trial, since they are indicative of the political and
spiritual attitude of the people, because highly ethical
consideration may be derived from the concept of
nationality. The fact that they have deteriorated is due to
philosophical and biological process and in part it is due
to faults and errors, but only in part.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you finished, Dr. Thoma? Have you
finished what you wanted to say?

DR. THOMA: Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal, of course, has not made its
decision yet and it will consider your arguments. But I am
bound to point out to you that there is no charge in the
Indictment or made in this case against the defendant
Rosenberg either that he invented his philosophy or that he
held certain philosophical ideas. The charge against him is
that he made a certain use of his philosophical ideas. That
is all I have to say. The only other matter which I want to
mention to you is an application you made for calling
Rosenberg, not first, but at some other point in the course
of his case and as to that, if the Tribunal should come to
the conclusion that these other philosophical works are not
matters which ought to be considered, it is not really
unnecessary to put off the calling of the defendant
Rosenberg to some later stage? Would it not be in the
interests of expedition that he should be called first?

DR. THOMA: Mr. President, there are two things I might say
to that: I was under the erroneous impression that any
evidence that is taken must begin with the examination of
the defendant.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

DR. THOMA: I was under the erroneous impression that all
evidence that is taken must begin with the hearing of the
accused. I assumed that documents could not be read prior to
that and that is why I asked that I be allowed to produce
some introductory documents, so that the examination of the
defendant Rosenberg could proceed more smoothly, because in
my opinion, the Tribunal would become acquainted with the
facts much more quickly through the documents. Furthermore,
I asked for the witness Riecke, who could also quickly
acquaint you with the Eastern problems and particularly with
the food problem and who would expedite matters if he were
heard before Rosenberg. That is how I planned it. I would
like to read in sequence the most important documents first,
not only the ideological ones but all those concerning the
administration of the East; then I would like to call the
witness Riecke, and after that the defendant Rosenberg.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal has already indicated
that, in its opinion, in every ordinary case, it tends to
expedition if the defendant is called first, and, of course,
any document which is material can be put to the defendant
in the course of his evidence for any explanation which he
may have to give upon it.

DR. THOMA: I believe, your Honour, that if I were to make
very brief remarks concerning the documents, it would take
less time than if Rosenberg dealt with the

[Page 346]

individual documents. That is why I thought I might read
some of the documents at the start - only to save time.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, in order that you should be prepared
and able to go on on Monday morning, the Tribunal, having
considered this matter, rules that Rosenberg should be
called first. That is the ruling of the Tribunal.

As to the documents, we will consider what our judgement
shall be with reference to the documents which are objected
to.

I said Monday morning. I beg your pardon. I meant at the end
of the defendant Kaltenbrunner's case.

DR. THOMA: Your Honours, I merely wish to deal with a few
points with reference to Rosenberg's ideology. I am asking
the Tribunal to read the speech by M. de Menthon, who states
that this ideology was in itself criminal since it was
related to his activity, as editor and publisher of the
"Volkischer Beobachter" and as author of the "Myth," and
other manuscripts. He gays that in this way he
psychologically prepared the German nation for an offensive
war.

THE PRESIDENT: I said that it was not a question of what was
the origin of his philosophy or the mere holding of the
philosophical ideas, but the use to which he puts these
philosophical ideas; that is the charge against him, in
connection with philosophical ideas. Well, the Tribunal will
consider it.

MR. DODD: If your Honour please, I want to make it clear
that we do object to the works of Hellpach. Dr. Dix had
asked me to request that his documents be heard today.

THE PRESIDENT: I think it is too late now, but we will
consider them shortly if Dr. Dix wishes it. We will consider
them very soon.

DR. DIX (counsel for the defendant Schacht): I would
appreciate that. We discussed it, first with Sir David and
then I discussed it with Mr. Dodd and Mr. Albrecht, and
these gentlemen have raised objections which should be
brought before the Tribunal. But translations have not yet
been made, and a decision ought to be made soon or else the
Document Book will not be ready. I would appreciate it if we
could briefly discuss that on Monday.

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.